This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

you are a administration too late to assess the blame for this circumstance
iraq under saddam was dominated by the sunni sect
the same sect in control of the house of saud
so, when we displaced saddam and the shia came into power, iraq was no longer in saudi arabia's orbit
instead, with the shia dominated government in iraq, it's now more inclined toward alliance with the shia dominated iranian government
you want to blame Obama but it was the shrub (more accurately, cheney) who changed the ME alliances out of saudi arabia's favor
again, Obama has yet another problem to clean up from the prior regime

But...Bush!!! Bush ! Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuush!!!!

Its not ABOUT Bush. Its about THIS president...the guy that has been in power for the last 5 years...and his complete failure in foreign policy, especially w/ regard to Syria.

So what should Kerry do? Bomb/land troops in Syria or throw away and opportunity to de escalate against the Iranians? Who wants an ally that requires either of those stipulations? The Saudi's are just Middle Eastern oil barron's that are use to the US doing their bidding.

yes.
There isn't any real reson to keep the cold war (s.i.c.) going againast Iran; we don't have to have an alliance, but there is no reson for detante'

This is not good. Need to watch how this develops. Kerry better get his act together.

Whenever Saudi Arabia is most aggrieved that is usually when despite its rhetoric it tries its hardest to hew closer to the United States. For example, I predict that the Kingdom will take its UNSC seat within the next 2-3 months once the media shock value of this pronouncement has died down. Why? This was only ever meant to be a message to the United States, to encourage Washington to pay closer attention to what is emanating from Riyadh. It has already won them some meetings, calls, and scheduled visits.

But shifting from the US? Please. There is no plausible alternative for Saudi Arabia. There is no substitute for the US security guarantee and the enormous military, political, and commercial (beyond oil & gas) that go with it. China is not going to open up military facilities in the Gulf, nor will Russia, and neither of them would be credible allies. The burgeoning relationship with China will continue but its military dimensions will remain on the far periphery.

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have a relationship purely based on quid pro quo. They provide oil, we provide protection. The Saudi's have overestimated what kind of protection they are entitled too in said relationship. They get gulf war style assistance against overt invasion, not needless attacks on Iran or Syria simply because they are Saudi rivals. The president needs to remind the royal family that they don't have the power to make such demands.

Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have a relationship purely based on quid pro quo. They provide oil, we provide protection. The Saudi's have overestimated what kind of protection they are entitled too in said relationship. They get gulf war style assistance against overt invasion, not needless attacks on Iran or Syria simply because they are Saudi rivals. The president needs to remind the royal family that they don't have the power to make such demands.

i believe he has and that is now why they are publicly pissed

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it ​